Radhakrishnan, J.

This appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 3 and additional defendants 8 to 11 O.S.No 428 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur.

2. Valuation shown in the memorandum of appeal is above Rs. 1 lakh. Total valuation is Rs 1,40,788/- and the court fee payable is Rs 12,478/- and the court fee paid is Rs 4,160/-. Registry noted various defects of which we are concerned with No.4, viz.,

"Since O.S.is for the year 1997, and valuation is below Rs 2 lakhs, please clarify how the appeal is maintainable before this court."

Advocate replied stating as follows:

"P.O.P.9/96 filed in February 1996, i.e., suit filed before March 1996. So R.F.A. is maintainable in the High Court."

Registry again reiterated the defect stating as follows:

"Suit is of the year 1997. Since the suit valuation is below Rs 2 lakhs, this appeal is not maintainable before the High Court. May be posted before court for orders."

Hence this matter has been placed before us.

3. This appeal has been preferred under Section 96 Order 41 Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel appearing for the appellant Smt Shahna Karthikeyan submitted that the appeal is perfectly maintainable since the suit was instituted before the Sub Court, Thrissur before the coming into force of the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1996 with effect from 27.3.1996. Counsel submitted that the suit was instituted as indigent person on 13.2.1996 with P.O.P. No 9 of 1996. Since Pauper Application was filed on13.2.1996 it must be taken that the suit was instituted on the said date though registered as O.S. No 428 of 1997 only on 25.9.1997. Counsel submitted that since pauper application was filed prior to 27.3.1996 suit related back to the said date and therefore parties would be governed by the position as it stood before 27.3.1996. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Kunnappadi Kalliani v. Lekharai (1996 (2) KLT 106). In order to establish the contention that the date of institution would relate back to the date of filing of the application, reference was also made to the decision of a learned single judge of this court in Mercantile Credit Corporation v. Sathyan(1997 (1) KLT 384).

4. Two points which arise for consideration here are as follows:

i) If a pauper application has been filed in a suit whether the date of institution of the suit would relate back to the filing of the pauper application?

ii) In case it relates back to the filing of the pauper application, whether defendant in a suit would also be governed by the situation which prevailed in the matter of filing of the appeal before this court prior to the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 6 of 1996.

5. The Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to civil courts in the State of Kerala. Section 12 of the Act provides for appeal from decrees and orders of District Court or Subordinate Judge's Court. It says that regular and special appeals shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie from the decrees or orders of a District Court or a Subordinate Judge's Court to the High Court. Originally Section 13 (1) provided that the appeals from decrees in suits, the subject matter of which did not exceed Rs 7,500/- lay to the District Court. The limit was later raised to Rs 10,000/- with effect from 26.3.1959 by virtue of Act 12 of 1959. The limit under Section 13 (1) for appeals to the District Court was again raised to Rs 25,000/- by the Kerala Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 6.1.1984. By the Kerala Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 6 of 1996 the limit was further raised to Rs 2 lakhs with effect from 27.3.1996.

6. We may in this connection refer to the decision of the Division Bench of the High court in Kunnappadi Kalliani v. Lekharai (1996 (2) KLT 106). That was a case where appeals were preferred before this court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. First of those appeals was filed against the decree in O.S. No